U.S. Has to Be Prepared to Make Real Concessions to Iran

Stephen Walt notes that there is a very distorted idea of what U.S. “concessions” to Iran include. He cites a recent op-ed by Richard Haass as an example of this:

For Haass (and many other Americans, one suspects), Obama was being incredibly generous last week. In Haass’s mind, saying that the world’s most powerful country won’t seek regime change in Iran is a wonderful gift, a lavish sign of American goodwill. Never mind that overthrowing the Iranian regime would be an illegal act of war. Never mind that Haass would probably not see a pledge by Rouhani that Iran does not seek regime change in America as giving the United States “quite a lot.”

This attitude is symptomatic of an enduring U.S. foreign- policy mindset: Overthrowing other governments is just one of those “normal” options that we keep in our foreign-policy tool kit, and telling another country we won’t actually use it this time is a really big sacrifice on our part.

It also can’t escape the notice of Iranians that doubt U.S. intentions that Obama has claimed not to favor regime change in another country, namely Libya, shortly before launching a military campaign aimed at achieving exactly that. Pledging not to overthrow the Iranian government is the bare minimum required to encourage trust that the U.S. is willing to accept a deal on the nuclear issue, but it is still a very small, boilerplate commitment. It would be a more meaningful gesture, and a real shift in policy, if Obama had said that the U.S. will not wage preventive war against Iran. Once again, that isn’t much of a concession in that it simply commits the U.S. to adhere to international law, but it would be an indication that the U.S. wants to reduce tensions with Iran.

As Walt observes, it isn’t up to Washington to permit Iran to have a nuclear program:

But Iranians see their “right” to a peaceful program as something they already possess; it is not a gift or a concession or a sign of U.S. goodwill. From their perspective, there was no need for Rouhani to offer up something in return.

This is important to keep in mind because Iran hawks will be very eager to portray Obama’s pursuit of diplomacy with Iran as a series of “giveaways” in exchange for nothing. If we treat boilerplate rhetoric that acknowledges Iranian rights as if it were a major concession, it will become politically impossible for the U.S. to make the real concessions needed to secure an agreement. That will give Iran no incentive to compromise, since it will conclude that any concessions it is willing to offer will not be matched. Paul Pillar addresses this in a new post today:

If the expectation is for Tehran to make substantial unilateral concessions or changes in its nuclear activities with nothing in return, then we are dwelling in the same fantasy world of those in the West and Israel who do not want any agreement at all and make unmeetable demands to try to preclude one.

The U.S. needs to be prepared to offer substantial sanctions relief if Iran is willing to accept limited enrichment inside Iran. Otherwise, Iran will see the exchange as an extremely lopsided one and won’t take the deal. Anything less than offering substantial sanctions relief virtually guarantees that negotiations won’t yield any of the desired results.

5 Responses to U.S. Has to Be Prepared to Make Real Concessions to Iran

“Iran hawks” as Larison doubtlessly defines them, extend well into dominance of the moderate left of the Democrat party, and are pretty well synonymous with “Zionists lite” e.g. Barbara Boxer.
“Zionists lite” it must be elaborated, don’t favor giving Palestinians much more than the equivalent of the Bantustans orginally proposed to black South Africans.

Saeed Jalili told the Financial Times several months ago that for Iran, enrichment was essential, but that enrichment of uranium to 20% was not particularly imortant. US must accept low-level enrichment. In my view.

The mullahs in Tehran know full well that Netanyahu will be demanding that regime change remain at the heart of this matter. (Anything Obama says in public will be more than offset by what Bibi says behind closed doors in Congress.) Besides, you are hearing nothing about Israel’s assasinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, and that alone shows how unlikely any prospects for success are out there…

Daniel, you are right that any offer from the US must contain room for Iran to breathe in order to be ultimately acceptable. But I do have a question for you about means and ends.

It seems that a great deal seems to be moving on the diplomatic front. It’s far too early to say these are results rather than fond hopes. But it also seems that the process has been created, or at least greatly accelerated, by threats of force and managing entangling alliances to apply pressure financially and militarily.

I know you have in all recent cases opposed the threat of force, and have greatly disdained the Iranian sanctions regime. But these seem to have achieved their objectives, at least in terms of pressure and bringing policy objectives nearer. In Syria, the administration seems to have lucked into a face saving deal, but one that also seems to have been precipitated by the threat of force.

How do you square these results with your preferences? Do you have a set of first principles which you always apply (to my eye basically anti-war all the time) or do you think that the realistic and even optimal thing to do might be in the future to throw the USA’s weight around?